Tag Archives: university
Genetically Engineering Jatropha Plants for Large Scale Production
By Futurity | Thu, 18 July 2013 Benefit From the Latest Energy Trends and Investment Opportunities before the mainstream media and investing public are aware they even exist. The Free Oilprice.com Energy Intelligence Report gives you this and much more. Scientists have identified the first step toward engineering a more drought-resistant variety of Jatropha, a potential biofuel plant. Jatropha has seeds with high oil content. But the oil’s potential as a biofuel is limited because, for large-scale production, this shrub-like plant needs the same amount of care and resources as crop plants. “It is thought that Jatropha‘s future lies in further improvement of Jatropha for large-scale production on marginal, non-food croplands through breeding and/or biotechnology,” says John E. Carlson, professor of molecular genetics at Penn State. “The more that is known about the genetic basis of Jatropha‘s key attributes such as drought tolerance, the more readily Jatropha improvement will progress.” According to Carlson, Jatropha currently grows best in tropical countries and is already being cultivated as a biofuel on a small scale in India, Southeast Asia, and Africa. Breeding a strain that could do well in arid, barren conditions could enable mass cultivation, but large-scale production may still be decades away. Researchers looked at a little known gene—JcPIP1—because a similar gene in the model plant Arabidopsis is known to play a role in drought response. They also examined JcPIP2, a potential drought response gene in Jatropha identified in 2007 by researchers at Sichuan University. They reported their findings today in the Journal of Plant Physiology. The JcPIP genes code for membrane channels called aquaporins, which are responsible for transporting and balancing water throughout the plant, though exactly how each gene affects aquaporin behavior under environmental stress remains unclear. However, researchers have found that JcPIP1 and JcPIP2 are expressed at different times during a stressful situation, which hints at what roles they play in response and recovery. By growing unmodified Jatropha samples in conditions simulating high soil salinity and low water availability, the researchers showed that Jatropha was normally more vulnerable and slower to recover from high salinity than from drought conditions. Using a tobacco mosaic virus to transiently transform Jatropha, the researchers created plants in which JcPIP2 or JcPIP1 was temporarily disabled. They subjected the modified samples to six days of stress and six days of recovery. To gauge the plants’ stress responses, they noted physical changes and measured root damage, leaf growth, electrolyte leakage in the leaves, and sap flow and volume. The researchers found that these stress responses were about the same between the two variants under drought conditions. However, plants with JcPIP1 disabled were slower to recover from salt damage. Analysis of plant parts during the stress and recovery stages showed that JcPIP2 was mostly active in the early stages of stress while JcPIP1 exp ression was greater during recovery. The timing indicates that JcPIP1 may be crucial in helping Jatropha recover from damage while JcPIP2 may play a role in prevention. How the two genes affect other plant functions remains unknown, and how large a part they play in the entire network of drought resistance relies on further study. “Plants have complex genetic and biochemical pathways for environmental stress resistance, that includes (multiple) genes and pathways,” says Carlson. “This inherent redundancy in stress responses ensures survival under varying environmental conditions, and provides many possible approaches to improving resistance.” According to the research team, the next step is to find how the JcPIP genes work at the cellular level, which can provide more detailed profiles of each gene’s exact function. Other researchers on this project contributed from Chonnam National University in Korea, University of Copenhagen, and Wonkwang University in Korea. The Korea Rural Development Agency, National Research Foundation of Korea, and the Korean Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology funded this study. By. A’ndrea Elyse Messer Continue reading
The Future of Farming, Part 1: Controlling the Environment
By Ned Madden TechNewsWorld 08/06/13 “We’re in the midst of a global movement, and the demand for locally grown, organic produce has never been stronger,” said Greengro Technologies CEO James Haas, “but the biggest problem is that in our society in the U.S., everybody stopped doing basic food-security things — like, for example, collecting seeds. … “Urban growers have to take personal responsibility for what they grow and eat.” Famine… or feast? Soil… or hydroponics, aquaponics, aquaculture or aeroponics? Nine billion hungry human beings will be living on planet Earth by 2050, according to United Nations estimates. “We will need to produce more food in the first half of this century than we did in the previous 100 centuries combined,” declared Tony Kajewski, an engineering manager at John Deere and president of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers . http://www.ectnews.c…4&ign=0/ign.gif Along with an increasing population, the world faces climate change, rising fossil fuel prices, ecosystem degradation, and water and land scarcity — all of which are making today’s food production methods increasingly unsustainable, according to “Latest Agricultural Technology Innovation,” a November 2012 report from Kachan & Co. There’s an upside to all this flux and food insecurity, however. The need for solutions is driving important new agricultural innovations — in particular, urban agriculture and indoor cultivation. Farming has migrated from the fields to the cities and moved into the developed environment. Urban Agriculture and CEA Urban agriculture involves growing plants and raising animals within and around cities. Urban agriculture means food production in densely populated areas, and it features many types of production systems, including traditional open gardens, protected environments and hydroponic greenhouses. Indoor farming goes by many names: “all-season farming,” “undercover agronomy,” “commercial indoor cultivation” and “controlled environment agriculture,” or CEA, to name a few. Entrepreneurial types are converting unused factories, warehouses, office buildings and other facilities into urban farms. Many are building new glasshouse greenhouses for that superior mix of natural sunlight and the powerful artificial lights favored in grow rooms. Urban agriculture offers a promising path toward the goal of feeding the planet’s growing — and increasingly urban — population. Many of the tools to make that path viable come from CEA. CEA involves a combination of engineering, plant science and computer-managed facility control technologies used to optimize plant growing systems, plant quality and production efficiency. In addition to indoor crop farming, CEA is used in research at universities and corporate laboratories. It is useful for isolating specific environmental variables for closer study. For example, researchers may study photosynthesis by comparing a crop grown with induction lighting vs. one grown with LEDs. The advantage is that all other factors can be kept constant, reducing the incidence of another influence on the experiment. CEA has celestial applications as well. NASA pioneered “astroculture” by flying a plant growth facility on nine Space Shuttle missions, including one in 1995 in which potatoes were grown in weightlessness. Some of the research on the International Space Station anticipates traveling beyond low-Earth orbit, focusing on meeting the needs of a long-term spaceflight to Mars, for example. A group of engineers at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida are developing an ISS plant habitat with a large growth chamber to learn the effects of long-duration microgravity exposure to plants in space. CEA is “an integrated science- and engineering-based approach to provide specific environments for plant productivity while optimizing resources including water, energy, space, capital and labor,” according to Gene A. Giacomelli, PhD, director of the Controlled Environment Agriculture Center and a professor in the Department of Agriculture and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Arizona. In CEA, conventional aquaculture (fish farming) has merged with hydroponics (cultivating plants in water) to produce bio-integrated “aquaponics,” a sustainable food production system that mixes vegetable and herb crops and aquatic life in a closed-loop, recirculating, symbiotic environment. “Aeroponics” is a method of growing plants without soil by suspending them above misting sprays that constantly moisten the roots with water and nutrients. Controlled variables include temperature, humidity, pH and nutrient analysis. Aquaponics is essentially an organic hydroponic system, explained Rebecca Nelson, co-owner of Nelson and Pade , which markets its Clear Flow Aquaponic Systems for commercial ventures and other applications. “The plant production part of the system doesn’t vary much from hydroponics,” Nelson told TechNewsWorld. “It is a soilless system. But in aquaponics, we use a natural fertilizer source, which is derived from fish waste. Aquaponics is a fully integrated system that produces both fish and plants.” CEA is “the future of farming,” according to Nelson. “A controlled environment greenhouse protects the crop from extreme climatic conditions and also allows a grower to implement biosecurity practices to ensure food safety.” Lettuce and Tomatoes The four major hydroponically grown plants are tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and lettuces, which can be grown and distributed within urban communities on a scale that doesn’t work for high-volume staple crops such as wheat, corn and rice. These basics foods for much of the world’s diet are unsuitable for CEA, due to issues like the massive production and distribution demands of the crops. By extending the growing season and ensuring product quality of veggies and fruits, CEA complements but does not replace field crop production. Local CEA practices can make a difference in people’s nutrition and quality of life while enhancing the remediation of resources. CEA and hydroponic-type systems offer relatively inexpensive “farms” for the urban grower who may be but more likely is not a traditional farmer, according to UA CEAC’s Giacomelli. “CEA provides the door into production agriculture for those with a non-farm background,” Giacomelli told TechNewsWorld. A long and productive farm background distinguishes Hollandia Produce , which specializes in the production, as well as the wholesale and retail marketing of vegetables it grows in greenhouses using hydroponic methods. Hollandia “Live Gourmet” brand living lettuces and leafy greens — harvested with their roots intact to preserve freshness — are distributed in 45 states and Canada. “CEA is definitely the way of the future,” CEO Peter Overgaag told TechNewsWorld. “Protecting the crops means less waste and of course more production per acre.” The Great Park AG Kawamura, former California secretary of agriculture, could easily be considered the King of Urban Ag in America. Kawamura is a founding member of Orange County Produce , which farms nearly 1,000 acres in a densely urban county. Kawamura also operates the leased 114-acre Orange County Great Park Farm, where his company grows a variety of fruits and vegetables for the consumer market and for contribution to local food banks. “This is now the largest ag operation in an urban park in the country,” said Tom Larson, the park’s farm, food and landscape manager. “What’s so spectacular is it pays for itself.” With an eye always fixed on the future, Kawamura is planning the construction of hydroponic greenhouses at the Great Park Farm. “CEA greenhouses can provide a new strategy for establishing production capacity inside urban areas where open ground may be scarce, impaired — brown fields — or difficult to farm traditionally,” Kawamura told TechNewsWorld. “They certainly can create new opportunities for year-round production of fruits and veggies in places where extreme weather has made farming impractical.” Food Security = Food Knowledge Greengro Technologies markets both indoor and outdoor aquaponic and hydroponic systems and grow rooms. CEO James Haas emphasizes the importance of philosophy and attitude in any successful urban agriculture initiative. “We’re in the midst of a global movement, and the demand for locally grown, organic produce has never been stronger,” Haas told TechNewsWorld, “but the biggest problem is that in our society in the U.S., everybody stopped doing basic food-security things — like, for example, collecting seeds for growing some of their own food. “If we want to create better urban food sources, we need to better understand our food itself,” he advised. “Urban growers have to take personal responsibility for what they grow and eat — that’s what rural farmers do.” High-tech Exurban Ag Houweling’s Tomatoes operates California’s first large-scale, energy-neutral urban ag vegetable greenhouse, producing a broad range of tomatoes and cucumbers grown hydroponically under glass across 125 acres. “I believe there is a place for urban agriculture, said David Bell, chief marketing officer, for Houweling’s Tomatoes, which is surrounded by farmland. “However, we see the future of CEA leaning towards larger-scale greenhouse farms built to meet a bigger regional area,” Bell told Tech News World. “It’s positioned for reduced but easy access to freight, with the integration of grow lights to facilitate year-round local production.” Still Experimental While they are understandably attractive, urban agriculture and urban farms remain at an experimental stage in the U.S., according to Danilo S. Lopez, principal at Novelle Consulting . “Communities will have to face up to regulatory requirements — relating to effluent discharge, noise, logistics, lighting, etc. — and higher quality labor supply year round on one side — and on the other side, the benefits of fresher products to the community — hopefully at lower or competitive cost to consumers,” Lopez told TechNewsWorld. “The U.S. can be supplied year round by Canada and Mexico with greenhouse vegetables,” explained Lopez. “For large commercial U.S. producers, the tested dependable hydroponics greenhouses should remain popular for the next decade. The jury is still out whether urban hydroponics greenhouse farming will be commercially viable.” The road ahead is not completely clear, however, according to Melissa Brechner, PhD, director of the CEA Hydroponic Technology Transfer Center in the Dept. of Biological and Environmental Engineering at Cornell University , who issued a word of caution to urban ag enthusiasts. “It is NOT true that ‘if you grow it they — restaurants, etc. — will buy it’. We have seen much perfectly grown produce go into landfills because the proprietor failed to sell it,” she noted. “In my opinion, the most important thing to remember is that CEA encompasses an integrated system that includes greenhouse design, environmental control, labor, marketing, management, distribution and consumer demand,” Brechner told TechNewsWorld. “All of the details must be working together, and the failure of any one aspect can bring the entire operation to a halt — bankruptcy.” Growth of Greenhouses World greenhouse vegetable production hit a major milestone in 2012, when the total worldwide greenhouse vegetable production area surpassed 1 million acres, according to the International Greenhouse Vegetable Production Statistics released by Cuesta Roble Consulting. “I predict that greenhouse construction will double in the next decade, completing a paradigm shift worldwide in the way mankind produces commodity fruits and vegetables,” Tim Madden, president of BiodynamicsCEA , told TechNewsWorld. “Instead of altering the genetics of the plants to provide the ability to grow in harsh environments, we change the environment to provide the best growing conditions for the plants.” Continue reading
Farm Subsidies: A Welfare Program For Agribusiness
t’s one of the most widely reviled federal programs. So why is Congress fighting to save farm subsidies? By The Week Staff | August 10, 2013 Most farmers are wealthier than the average American, with a household income of $87,289 in 2011 — 29 percent higher than the $67,677 average for all U.S. households Why is the farm bill so controversial? Critics contend that the subsidies it hands out are wasteful, illogical, and counterproductive — a welfare program for millionaires and giant agribusinesses. Over the last decade, the farm bill has cost taxpayers more than $168 billion. In theory, the program uses loans, price supports, and payments to protect family farmers from the fickle fluctuations of weather, price, and economic conditions, so that their businesses remain stable and Americans are ensured a steady supply of affordable food. In practice, the program keeps food prices high, costing consumers billions, while funneling most of its aid to giant agribusinesses and wealthy farmers. About 75 percent of total subsidies go to the biggest 10 percent of farming companies, including Riceland Foods Inc., Pilgrims Pride Corp., and Archer Daniels Midland. Among the “farmers” who get federal subsidies are Bruce Springsteen (who leases land to an organic farmer), Jon Bon Jovi (who owns bee colonies), former President Jimmy Carter, and billionaire media mogul Ted Turner. “The typical farmer has literally millions of dollars of wealth,” said Dan Sumner, an agricultural economist at the University of California, Davis. What about the average farmer? He’s doing pretty well too. Despite droughts and high temperatures, farmers have enjoyed record crop-production levels and prices, as well as double-digit increases to the value of their land for the third year in a row in 2013. In fact, most farmers are wealthier than the average American, with a household income of $87,289 in 2011 — 29 percent higher than the $67,677 average for all U.S. households. And yet many still get taxpayer dollars to protect their incomes. In fact, the farm bill pays some farmers not to grow crops — in order to avoid oversupply that would drive food prices down for the rest of us. “Only an evil genius could have dreamed this up,” said Scott Faber, vice president for governmental affairs at the Environmental Working Group. How did the program start? Subsidies originated during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl catastrophe of the 1930s, when there was a genuine fear that the nation’s agricultural sector was on the brink of collapse. At that time, about a quarter of the country’s population lived in rural areas, and tens of thousands of American families found themselves literally in danger of “losing the farm.” So President Roosevelt pushed through the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which pegged crop prices to their historic highs and introduced the policy of paying farmers not to produce. It was supposed to be a “temporary solution to deal with an emergency,” as Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace put it. But in 1949 the Agricultural Act was made permanent, and — more than six decades later — a version of that same legislation still exists today. Why not reform the program? Congress tried that in 1996, with the Freedom to Farm Act, which removed price supports and grain management in an attempt to let the free market dictate prices. That reform didn’t last long. As commodity prices fell and farmers began to complain, lawmakers caved in and introduced several new programs that continue today. They include the much-criticized “direct payments” to farmers — checks written regardless of market conditions or the farmer’s crop yields — and the controversial crop insurance program, which critics say has encouraged widespread fraud. In that program, taxpayers pick up 62 percent of any farmer’s insurance premiums and help fund payouts if a claim for crop damage is made. Why not kill subsidies altogether? Politics. The farm lobby has immense power in Washington, thanks to its generous contributions to congressional campaigns and political parties, and to the large number of legislators from farm states — most of them Republican. Democrats have also traditionally supported the farm bill because it contains food stamp funding. This year, that partnership broke down, when House Republicans passed a version of the farm bill that strips the legislation of its food stamp provisions for the first time since 1973. President Obama responded by threatening to veto any legislation that doesn’t include food stamp funding. At the moment, the situation is at a stalemate. What’s likely to happen? A deal will probably get cut that will keep farm subsidies fairly intact. The House version of the bill, in fact, contains some of the most generous farm spending in history: While ending direct payments, the legislation channels $8.9 billion into an expanded crop insurance program, which already ballooned from $1.5 billion in 2002 to $7.4 billion by 2011. In the House bill, moreover, the farm subsidies that used to expire every five years are made permanent. “It’s hard to understand how anyone in the House who calls himself a conservative could support this, but many did,” said Chris Chocola, president of the free-market-oriented Club for Growth. “They’re locking in historically high commodity prices at taxpayer expense.” New York City’s ‘farmers’ New Yorkers wouldn’t know it, but they live in a city of farmers. Over the last decade, the farm bill has paid out millions of dollars in subsidies to more than 1,500 city residents — 374 on the plush Upper East Side alone. They aren’t receiving payments for farms in the city, but for property they own elsewhere. Recipients include Mark F. Rockefeller, a fourth-generation heir of the famous family who was paid $342,634 to not farm from 2001 to 2011, so that his land in Idaho could return to its natural state. Other top New York farmers include a managing director at Wells Fargo bank, and a neurologist in Queens. “Payments are going to people in Manhattan who simply have invested in farmland and are about as far away from farmers as one could imagine,” said Craig Cox, senior vice president for agriculture and natural resources at the Environmental Working Group. “That should really make people wonder what on earth has happened to the farm program.” Continue reading
